John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.
The Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.· AI-written
542 U.S. 656 · No. 03-218 · 2003 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 29, 2004 · argued Mar 2, 2004
First Amendment · Obscenity, federal
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2003 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorJoined a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- John D. Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralAttorney general of the United States, or his office
- Respondent
- American Civil Liberties Union et al.Public interest organization
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 29, 2004DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General lost.
- Mar 2, 2004ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
23 other argued cases since 1946 on obscenity, federal, newest first.
- Lockhart v. United States577 U.S. 347Mar 1, 2016 · 577 U.S. 347First Amendment6–27–2 band
- United States v. Michael Williams553 U.S. 285May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 285First Amendment7–27–2 band
- United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.539 U.S. 194Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 194First Amendment6–36–3 band
- John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.535 U.S. 564May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 564First Amendment8–18–1 band
- John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. the Free Speech Coalition et al.535 U.S. 234Apr 16, 2002 · 535 U.S. 234First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press521 U.S. 844Jun 26, 1997 · 521 U.S. 844First AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., et al.513 U.S. 64Nov 29, 1994 · 513 U.S. 64First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States509 U.S. 544Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 544First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.492 U.S. 115Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 115First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Pinkus, dba Rosslyn News Co. et al. v. United States436 U.S. 293May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 293First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States431 U.S. 291May 23, 1977 · 431 U.S. 291First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Marks et al. v. United States430 U.S. 188Mar 1, 1977 · 430 U.S. 188First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Hamling et al. v. United States418 U.S. 87Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 87First Amendment5–45–4 band
- United States v. Orito413 U.S. 139Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 139First Amendment5–45–4 band
- United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant)413 U.S. 123Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 123First Amendment5–45–4 band
- United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (Luros, Claimant)402 U.S. 363May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 363First Amendment6–36–3 band
- United States v. Reidel402 U.S. 351May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 351First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Blount, Postmaster General, et al. v. Rizzi, dba the Mail Box400 U.S. 410Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Rowan, dba American Book Service, et al. v. United States Post Office Department et al.397 U.S. 728May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 728First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
- Ginzburg et al. v. United States383 U.S. 463Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 463First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Manual Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Day, Postmaster GeneralLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press370 U.S. 478Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 478First AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press6–18–1 band
- Roth v. United StatesLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press354 U.S. 476Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 476First AmendmentLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press6–36–3 band
- United States v. Alpers338 U.S. 680Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 680First Amendment5–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.